Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 03:01 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
If KVM cannot find an exact match for a requested CPUID leaf, the
code will try to find the closest match instead of simply confessing
it's failure. The heuristic is on one hand wrong nowadays,
since it does not take the KVM CPUID
On 03/31/2011 12:12 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 03/30/2011 03:01 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
If KVM cannot find an exact match for a requested CPUID leaf, the
code will try to find the closest match instead of simply confessing
it's failure. The heuristic is on one hand wrong
If KVM cannot find an exact match for a requested CPUID leaf, the
code will try to find the closest match instead of simply confessing
it's failure. The heuristic is on one hand wrong nowadays,
since it does not take the KVM CPUID leaves (0x40xx) into
account. On the other hand the callers of
On 03/30/2011 03:01 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
If KVM cannot find an exact match for a requested CPUID leaf, the
code will try to find the closest match instead of simply confessing
it's failure. The heuristic is on one hand wrong nowadays,
since it does not take the KVM CPUID leaves (0x40xx)
On 03/30/2011 03:26 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
This behaviour is mandated by the spec (looking at the Intel one),
though it is implemented incorrectly - should always return largest
basic leaf, and ignore the kvm leaves.
I think the correct behaviour is:
if (e-function 1 (!best ||
